Presidential candidate Donald Trump set off alarm bells Thursday with a suggestion that a Trump administration would not automatically defend fellow members of NATO from a Russian attack if they haven’t lived up to their financial obligations.
Trump, in an interview published in The New York Times Wednesday, went beyond his earlier assertions that he might reconsider the U.S. role as one of 28 nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, because many European countries are not spending enough on defense.
When asked if he would provide military aid to the Baltic countries if Russia were to attack, Trump replied, “If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.”
Trump was more vague when asked what he would do if the answer were no.
“Well, I’m not saying if not,” he said. “I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.”
Trump’s remarks provoked a swift rebuke from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
“Solidarity among allies is a key value for NATO,” he said in a statement in which he did not mention Trump by name, saying he will not interfere in U.S. elections. “This is good for European security and good for U.S. security. We defend one another.”
Noting the United States has always stood by Europe since it was formed as the bedrock of security after World War II, Stoltenberg added, “Two world wars have shown that peace in Europe is also important for the security of the United States.”
Though U.S. administrations have for decades complained that Europe is getting a free ride, Trump’s comments were a repudiation of Article 5, the heart of the alliance, that an attack on one is considered an attack on all. Article 5 was first invoked after the terrorist attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and is the reason why European and Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan.
“There’s no question the NATO allies could be doing more,” said James Goldgeier, dean of the school of international service at American University and a Foreign Relations Council fellow.
“But nobody ever said we’re going to pick and choose who we’re going to defend based on how much they’re spending. The alliance would unravel if everyone did that.”
This is not the first time Trump has criticized NATO, formed in 1949 by the United States, Canada and 10 European countries specifically to defend each other against the former Soviet Union. Trump’s primary objection has been economic. Washington pays about a fifth of NATO’s direct costs, more than any other country, and roughly 75 percent of all military spending, according to a 2015 NATO report.
In an interview with The Washington Post editorial page published March 21, Trump called NATO a “good thing to have,” but said it was obsolete and no longer affordable in an era of large U.S. deficits.
“I don’t want to pull it out,” he said of U.S. membership, adding, “NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We’re not a rich country. . . . NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe but we’re spending a lot of money. Number one, I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. I think NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved.”
He made a similar argument at a CNN town hall.
“Frankly, they have to put up more money,” he said. “We are paying disproportionately. It’s too much, and frankly it’s a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea.”
Military spending by NATO allies has long been a bone of contention for U.S. officials. NATO members are expected to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. In fact, only five countries do, among them the United States.
In a 2011 speech, when Robert Gates was defense secretary, he warned NATO faced “military irrelevance” if Europeans didn’t spent more.
“The blunt reality,” Gates said, “is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”
But no critics have gone as far as Trump did in the Times interview, representing a change from decades of internationalist Republican foreign policy and a rejection of the idea of America as the “indispensable nation.”
“This is as opposite to the Reagan approach to foreign policy as you could get,” Goldgeier said.
“You can argue the Europeans and the E.U. should do more to defend themselves. But you have to have a shared commitment. It’s not foreign policy going to the highest bidder.”
(c) 2016, The Washington Post · Carol Morello